This LINGUIST List issue is a review of a book published by one of our
supporting publishers, commissioned by our book review editorial staff. We
welcome discussion of this book review on the list, and particularly invite
the author(s) or editor(s) of this book to join in. To start a discussion of
this book, you can use the
Discussion form on the LINGUIST List website. For
the subject of the discussion, specify "Book Review" and the issue number of
this review. If you are interested in reviewing a book for LINGUIST, look for
the most recent posting with the subject "Reviews: AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW", and
follow the instructions at the top of the message. You can also contact the
book review staff directly.

Antonis Polentas, Department of Language and Linguistics, University of Essex (UK)

This is a short monograph, more like the print-out of a long paper, about the typology of a rarely investigated phenomenon, dependency reversal in noun-attribute (DRNA) constructions (this review refers to the study as published in 2000). DRNA constructions present a reversal of the dependency relation between the attribute and the noun in a noun phrase (NP). Specifically, the attribute is marked as the (formal) head of the NP and the noun, which is the semantic head, is demoted to the role of the dependent. In the cases discussed in this study and elsewhere (Ross 1998), the DRNA construction looks like a possessive NP, with the original attribute being the possessed and the noun as the possessor.

The first half of the work is devoted to the terminology used by Malchukov (section 1) and to the description of his data. Due to the rarity of DRNA constructions, he decided to present all six cases where he had spotted this type of construction (sections 2-7) and in a further short section he discusses the possibility of similar data in other languages (section 8). The second part of the work contains a discussion of how to build a typology of DRNA constructions (section 9) and some suggestions of possible explanations of the patterns observed (section 10).

In the introductory section, Malchukov situates his study in the context of related typological work (Croft 1995 on the typology of genitive constructions, Plank's survey of ''Suffixaufnahme'' constructions, work on possessive constructions, and Nichols' (1986) study of head vs. dependent marking languages). He defines the domain of his inquiry as the reversal of dependency marking between the noun and its attribute in the NP without any effect on the meaning of the NP. In English and other European languages this phenomenon does not manifest itself in such a clear way as in the languages examined by Malchukov, but examples such as (1) and (2) come close to it:

(1) Foolish Hobbit! (2) Fool of a Hobbit!

(see Foolen 2004 for an examination of such constructions -which he calls ''expressive binomial NPs'' - in Germanic and Romance languages with reference to Malchukov's work).The definition of the domain of inquiry limits to a certain extent the data that fall under its scope, as DRNA without effect on meaning and marked in a formally clear way, is quite rare crosslinguistically. In sections 2-7 Malchukov presents the data from six languages that can be classified as exhibiting this type of dependency reversal in the NP. Because of the small amount of data, there is no discussion of sampling or statistical analysis, as is usually the case in typological studies.

Section 2 presents DRNA data from Tungunsic languages (on which Malchukov has worked extensively). It is shown that there is variation among the members of this relatively small (12) language family with respect to DRNA constructions: Oroch exhibits a clear case of adjective-noun dependency reversal, but in the other languages this is possible only with participles.

Section 3 contains a 6-page long discussion of DRNA construction data from Aleut, a highly agglutinative, paleosiberian language where the DRNA pattern is the only option in attributive NPs (i.e. they are like the possessive NPs with a few differences).

Section 4 presents data from Hausa (western Chadic), where the prenominal adjectives in attributive NPs are marked with a linker, very much like the head in the possessive NPs (although Malchukov points out a number of differences between the DRNA and the possessive constructions).

Section 5 contains a brief discussion of DRNA data from Gude, another Chadic language. Although data like the following appear to exhibit a clear DRNA instance:

(2) minä nga Musa wife of Musa 'Musa's wife'

(3) buuta nga darä cheap of hat 'cheap hat'

''Buuta'' is classified as an adjectival noun. Adjectival nouns form a closed class in this language. Nevertheless, as Malchukov points out, the data from Gude are not complete, so it is not clear how they fit in the DRNA typology.

Data from Chinook (Penutian) are discussed next. Based on remarks by Boas, Malchukov points out that the DRNA pattern seems to be the most common one to render property words in this language (following the possessive pattern).

The Latin data presented in the 7th section are likely to be the more familiar ones - as Latin is the best described among the languages discussed in this study - but they may also be the most puzzling seen from the perspective of a DRNA typology The type of data presented are of the type sapientia Laeli (lit. 'wisdom of Laelus') meaning 'wise Laelius' (sapiens Laelus).

Section 8 concludes the description of the data with a brief discussion of a number of candidates for the DRNA typology from a variety of other languages. Unfortunately, the section is very brief (at about 1.5 pages long) without much discussion of the relevant data. It is more of a section with suggestions for further research on the topic. In a postscript Malchukov refers to Ross (1998) on ''possessive-like attributive constructions'' in Western Melanesian languages presenting a wealth of data related to Malchukov's study. It's a pity that time limitations did not make it possible for the author to take them into account in his typology.

The second part of the study contains two sections: section 9 which is about the typology of the data discussed in the previous sections and section 10 which presents a sketch of potential explanations of the typology of DRNA.

Section 9 is the longest one of the monograph and discusses ways in which the data presented in the previous sections can be classified. A first subsection, builds on Plank's study of ''Suffixaufnahme'' (1995) to attempt a taxonomy of DRNA constructions with respect to four parameters: linear order (in all cases DRNA constructions show the same patterns as possessive NPs), locus of marking, type of marking, and degree of fusion. There are no clear findings in this section although some correlations seem to emerge (the one between the locus and the type of marking). Next Malchukov discusses the classes of attributes that take part in DRNA constructions. As far as the six cases he examines are concerned these can be adjectives and/ or participles. Quite interesting is the discussion of the degree of attribute's upgrading and recategorization where the author places five of the six languages (i.e. all except Gude due to lack of data) in a scale according to these two parameters. Once more variation is observed, even among this small number of languages. Finally, it is shown that languages differ also with respect to whether the DRNA pattern is a basic or a marginal/ restricted one in the language. The next subsection (9.2) explores how one could draw an ''upward taxonomy'' of the DRNA patterns found in the sample. Malchukov shows that two (binary) parameters, upgrading of the attribute and downgrading of the noun, can be combined giving a four way classification of dependency patterns in attributive NPs. The DRNA pattern is one where both parameters have positive value (so it involves both upgrading of the attribute and downgrading of the head noun). The ''normal'' (iconic) pattern is the reverse, where both values are negative. The interesting aspect of this way of looking at attributive NPs is that it provides a way to look at the relation of DRNA pattern with other constructions which show diversions from the ''iconic'' pattern. In the rest of the subsection Malchukov elaborates further on the upward taxonomy of DRNA constructions. The final subsection of section 9 (9.3) contains remarks about constructions that share some characteristics with the DRNA ones.

Section 10 presents the sketch of three attempts to provide a motivation for the DRNA construction. First, a trivial observation is that the under-differentiation between adjectives and nouns is a condition for the DRNA pattern, but it cannot provide a clear explanation of its appearance. Functional motivations seem more promising as they analyze DRNA constructions as the result of the pragmatic salience of the attribute. Finally Malchukov discusses briefly how the DRNA patterns may have emerged in the history of the languages as the result of recategorization and reanalysis resulting in the attributive constructions becoming similar to the possessive ones.

In the endnote section the book contains a list of the abbreviations used (the only omissions have to do with glosses explained in the main text) and a list of references. The size of the text does not make necessary an index of linguistic terms, authors and languages, although this might have been useful.

EVALUATION In spite of its small size, Malchukov's monograph is of interest as it discusses a puzzling phenomenon that hasn't been analyzed at any depth. The work is worth reading as it can be seen as offering a window on a ''project in progress,'' a glimpse at the typologist's workbench. The number of languages discussed may be small, but they have different typological profiles and they belong to different families. Malchukov's discussion touches on issues related to parts of speech (specifically adjectives and their relation to nouns), possessive constructions, internal relative clauses, etc.

This short study looks somehow incomplete and probably it needed a longer discussion of the cases that Malchukov identifies as potential candidates for DRNA or of cases that come close to meeting his definition. The discussion of the six cases of DRNA constructions is rather short and maybe a more extensive analysis of the data from each language would have made it easier for the reader to follow the author's points.

Typos are very few and do not disturb the reading of the text. The quotations from German texts are not translated, which might be a problem for some readers. The exposition is clear and it presents a good case of how it is to plan a typological project. The cross-linguistic rarity of the DRNA as discussed by Malchukov raises some questions for theoretical linguistics as well (and this is also the case with ''Suffixaufnahme'' cases, as discussed in Plank 1995). One would wish that the author (or someone else) would undertake the more ambitious task to incorporate his findings on DRNA in the typological discussions of the structure of possessive NPs, attribute constructions and the general discussion of the nature of syntactic categories and of the notion of ''head'' (e.g. Corbett et al. 1993). More recently Foolen (2004) used analyzed expressive binomial NPs (i.e. constructions of the type ''a dream of a car'', ''a hell of a job'' etc.) using insights from Ross (1998) and Malchukov's typology of DRNA patterns.

Generally, reading Malchukov's explorative study makes one wish for a longer monograph incorporating findings that have been reported in the last ten years and maybe a longer discussion of the motivation of the DRNA pattern and its relation to possessive NPs. It should be of interest to linguists working on the typology of attributive NPs, on the nature of syntactic and semantic heads, on the structure of the NPs, on the nature of syntactic categories, etc. The text as it is offers an interesting discussion of a relatively rare phenomenon and explores ways for its typological classification. It opens the way for further research in an under-explored area of linguistic typology.

ABOUT THE REVIEWER Antonis Polentas is a PhD student at the University of Essex (UK). His dissertation is about the application of the theory of Simpler Syntax in the case of Modern Greek clitic constructions. His interests include Constraint-Based linguistics (HPSG, Simpler Syntax), Morphology, and linguistic typology.